This article first distinguishes three governance scenarios that have been enacted in the COVID-19 pandemic, including identification and control; herd immunity without policy adjustments; and periodic lockdowns and hasty opening. In suggesting how different governments’ strategies were taxonomized into these categories, the paper examines major socio-legal challenges, including variations in social structures and government responsibilities; differences in public health cultures and legal policy options available to governments; unequal distribution of health and social welfare benefits; and public concerns of government overreach in relation to privacy of the infected and the preservation of individual liberty and freedom. Finally, the paper offers critical recommendations in the interest of ensuring a robust social-legal framework for providing adequate medical care to the infected; improving public health for vulnerable groups; ensuring that less privileged countries have access to vaccines; and designing post-disaster reconstruction by seeking global health objectives, rather than state-centric national justice.

本文首先区分了在 COVID-19 大流行中制定的三种治理方案，包括识别和控制；无需政策调整的群体免疫；以及定期封锁和仓促开放。在提出如何将不同政府的战略分类为这些类别时，本文探讨了主要的社会法律挑战，包括社会结构和政府责任的变化；公共卫生文化和政府可用的法律政策选择存在差异；健康和社会福利分配不均；以及公众对政府在感染者隐私和保护个人自由方面过度干预的担忧。最后，该文件提出了重要建议，以确保建立健全的社会法律框架，为感染者提供充分的医疗服务；改善弱势群体的公共卫生；确保弱势国家能够获得疫苗；通过寻求全球卫生目标而不是以国家为中心的国家正义来设计灾后重建。